Is “Indianization” through a Uniform Civil Code a “Communal Objective”?

Hi!

Team CRI have just launched Swarajya! Check it out!

In my last post on the need for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to be a truly “Dharmnirpeksh” (equidistant from all faiths/neutral/secular) democracy, I had reproduced portions of the Constituent Assembly debate on UCC. In this post, the idea is to look at UCC through the observations of the Indian Supreme Court, starting with the well-known case of Shah Bano in 1985 until the decision of John Vallamattom v. Union of India in 2003.

To this end, large portions of these decisions have been reproduced so as to enable our readers to see for themselves that the arguments made by pro-UCC commentators have found more than a modicum of endorsement by the Supreme Court in a few decisions. If any of us had made the same statements today on social media or on facile talk shows such as “We The People”, the likes of Mr. and Ms. Old Monk and Burkha “Radia” Dutt would have lost no time in branding us “communal”, “anti-minority”, and what not…so much for “liberalism” and “secularism”.

1. Mohd.Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum- April 1985

This was a case involving the issue of providing maintenance/alimony under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a 62-year old Muslim woman (a mother of five children) who was divorced by her husband. The Supreme Court interpreted Muslim Personal law and the Criminal Procedure Code to rule in favour of the divorced woman, only to watch its decision being ultimately rendered toothless and otiose by the Congress Government through the duplicitously christened Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

This decision has quite a few observations on the attitude of Islamist hardliners towards the issue of maintenance, and the lack of political will in the establishment to ensure that a Uniform Civil Code is brought into force. Following are some of the stinging observations of the Court:

“It is a matter of deep regret that some of the interveners who supported the appellant, took up an extreme position by displaying an unwarranted zeal to defeat the right to maintenance of women who are unable to maintain themselves. The written submissions of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board have gone to the length of asserting that it is irrelevant to inquire as to how a Muslim divorce should maintain her.

The facile answer of the Board is that the Personal Law has devised the system of Mahr to meet the requirements of women and if a woman is indigent, she must look to her relations, including nephew and cousins, to support her. This is a most unreasonable view of law as well as life. We appreciate that Begum Temur Jehan, a social worker who has been working in association with the Delhi City Women’s Association for the uplift of Muslim women, intervened to support Mr. Daniel Latifi who appeared on behalf of the wife.

It is also a matter of regret that Article 44 of our Constitution has remained a dead letter. It provides that “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”. There is no evidence of any official activity for framing a common civil code for the country. A belief seems to have gained ground that it is for the Muslim community to take a lead in the matter of reforms of their personal law.

A common Civil Code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies. No community is likely to bell the cat by making gratuitous concessions on this issue. It is the State which is charged with the duty of securing a uniform civil code for the citizens of the country and, unquestionably, it has the legislative competence to do so.

A counsel in the case whispered, somewhat audibly, that legislative competence is one thing, the political courage to use that competence is quite another. We understand the difficulties involved in bringing persons of different faiths and persuasions on a common platform. But, a beginning has to be made if the Constitution is to have any meaning. Inevitably, the role of the reformer has to be assumed by the courts because; it is beyond the endurance of sensitive minds to allow injustice to be suffered when it is so palpable. But piecemeal attempts of courts to bridge the gap between personal Laws cannot take the place of a common Civil Code.

Justice to all is a far more satisfactory way of dispensing justice than justice from case to case. Dr. Tahir Mahmood in his book ‘Muslim Personal Law’ (1977 Edition, pages 200-202), has made a powerful plea for framing a uniform Civil Code for all citizens of India. He says:

“In pursuance of the goal of secularism, the State must stop administering religion based personal laws”.

He wants the lead to come from the majority community but, we should have thought that, lead or no lead, the State must act. It would be useful to quote the appeal made by the author to the Muslim community:

“Instead of wasting their energies in exerting theological and political pressure in order to secure an “immunity” for their traditional personal law from the state` legislative jurisdiction, the Muslim will do well to begin exploring and demonstrating how the true Islamic laws, purged of their time-worn and anachronistic interpretations, can enrich the common civil code of India.”

2. Ms. Jordan Diengdeh vs S.S. Chopra- May, 1985

Citing the Shah Bano case, the Supreme Court observed the following in this decision:

“We may add that under strict Hanafi Law, there was no provision enabling a Muslim women to obtain a decree dissolving her marriage on the failure of the husband to maintain her or on his deserting her or maltreating her and it was the absence of such a provision entailing ‘unspeakable misery in innumerable Muslim women’ that was responsible for the dissolution of the Muslims Marriages Act, 1939. (See Statements of Objects and Reasons of that Act). If the legislature could so alter the Hanafi Law, we fail to understand the hullabaloo about the recent judgment of this court in the case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum & Ors. interpreting the provisions of sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Muslim Law….

It is thus seen that the law relating to judicial separation, divorce and nullity of marriage is far, far from uniform. Surely, the times has now come for a complete reform of the law of marriage and make a uniform law applicable to all people irrespective of religion or caste. It appears to be necessary to introduce irretrievable break down of marriage and mutual consent as grounds of divorce in all cases. The case before us is an illustration of a case where the parties are bound together by a marital tie which is better untied.

There is no point or purpose to be served by the continuance of a marriage which has so completely and signally broken down. We suggest that the time has come for the intervention of the legislature in these matters to provide for a uniform code of marriage and divorce and to provide by law for a way out of the unhappy situations in which couples like the present have find themselves in. We direct that a copy of this order may be forwarded to the Ministry of Law and Justice for such action as they may deem fit to take. In the meanwhile, let notice

go to the respondents.”

3. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India- May 1995

This was a case in which a Hindu husband converted to Islam to legitimize his second marriage. Following was the lamentation of the Supreme Court in this case:

“Till the time we achieve the goal – uniform civil code for all the citizens of India – there is an open inducement to a Hindu husband, who wants to enter into second marriage while the first marriage is subsisting, to become a Muslim. Since monogamy is the law for Hindus and the Muslim law permits as many as four wives in India, errand Hindu husband embraces Islam to circumvent the provisions of the Hindu law and to escape from penal consequences.”

On the need for a UCC, here is what the Apex Court said:

“The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code through-out the territory of India” is an unequivocal mandate under Article 44 of the Constitution of India which seeks to introduce a uniform personal law – a decisive step towards national consolidation. Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, while defending the introduction of the Hindu Code Bill instead of a uniform civil code, in the Parliament in 1954, said “I do not think that at the present moment the time is ripe in India for me to try to push it through”. It appears that even 41 years thereafter, the Rulers of the day are not in a mood to retrieve Article 44 from the cold storage where it is lying since 1949.

The Governments – which have come and gone – have so far failed to make any effort towards “unified personal law for all Indians”. The reasons are too obvious to be stated. The utmost that has been done is to codify the Hindu law in the form of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 which have replaced the traditional Hindu law based on different schools of thought and scriptural laws into one unified code.

When more than 80% of the citizens have already been brought under the codified personal law there is no justification whatsoever to keep in abeyance, any more, the introduction of “uniform civil code” for all citizens in the territory of India.

…One wonders how long will it take for the Government of the day to implement the mandate of the framers of the Constitution under Article 44 of the Constitution of India. The traditional Hindu law – personal law of the Hindus – governing inheritance, succession and marriage was given go- bye as back as 1955-56 by codifying the same. There is no justification whatsoever in delaying indefinitely the introduction of a uniform personal law in the country.

Article 44 is based on the concept that there is no necessary connection between religion and personal law in a civilised society. Article 25 guarantees religious freedom whereas Article 44 seeks to divest religion from social relations and personal law. Marriage, succession and like matters of a secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee enshrined under Articles 25, 26 and 27.

The personal law of the Hindus, such as relating to marriage, succession and the like have all a sacramental origin, in the same manner as in the case of the Muslims or the Christians. The Hindus along with Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains have forsaken their sentiments in the cause of the national unity and integration, some other communities would not, though the Constitution enjoins the establishment of a “common civil Code” for the whole of India.

It has been judicially acclaimed in the United States of America that the practice of Polygamy is injurious to “public morals”, even though some religion may make it obligatory or desirable for its followers. It can be superseded by the State just as it can prohibit human sacrifice or the practice of “Suttee” in the interest of public order. Bigamous marriage has been made punishable amongst Christians by Act (XV of 1872), Parsis by Act (III of 1936) and Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains by Act (XXV of 1955).

Political history of India shows that during the Muslim regime, justice was administered by the Qazis who would obviously apply the Muslim Scriptural law to Muslims, but there was no similar assurance so far litigations concerning Hindus were concerned. The system, more or less, continued during the time of the East India Company, until 1772 when Warren Hastings made Regulations for the administration of civil justice for the native population, without discrimination between Hindus and Mahomedans.

The 1772 Regulations followed by the Regulations of 1781 whereunder it was prescribed that either community was to be governed by its “personal” law in matters relating to inheritance, marriage, religious usage and institutions. So far as the criminal justice was concerned the British gradually superseded the Muslim law in 1832 and criminal justice was governed by the English common law. Finally the Indian Penal Code was enacted in 1860. This broad policy continued throughout the British regime until independence and the territory of India was partitioned by the British Rulers into two States on the basis of religion.

Those who preferred to remain in India after the partition, fully knew that the Indian leaders did not believe in two-nation or three-nation theory and that in the Indian Republic there was to be only one Nation – Indian nation – and no community could claim to remain a separate entity on the basis of religion.

It would be necessary to emphasise that the respective personal laws were permitted by the British to govern the matters relating to inheritance, marriages etc. only under the Regulations of 1781 framed by Warren Hastings. The Legislation – not religion – being the authority under which personal law was permitted to operate and is continuing to operate, the same can be superseded/supplemented by introducing a uniform civil code.

In this view of the matter no community can oppose the introduction of uniform civil code for all the citizens in the territory of India. The Successive Governments till-date have been wholly re-miss in their duty of implementing the constitutional mandate under Article 44 of the Constitution of India.

We, therefore, request the Government of India through the Prime Minister of the country to have a fresh look at Article 44 of the Constitution of India and “endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”. We further direct the Government of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice to file an affidavit of a responsible officer in this Court in August, 1996 indicating there in the steps taken and efforts made, by the Government of India, towards securing a “uniform civil code” for the citizens of India.”

What is astonishing is that in the Sarla Mudgal case, the Deve Gowda-led United Front Government took the position before the Supreme Court that that it would take steps towards a UCC “only if the communities which desire such a code approach the Govt. and take the initiative themselves in the matter”. Therefore, until all communities together ask for a UCC, the government will not address the issue on its own!

Given that this is a Utopian expectation, it is clear that this is a way of lending a “secular” and “liberal” sheen to a decadent polity which is founded on and rooted in appeasement. Instead of convincing communities about the benefits of a UCC for national integration, to leave the issue entirely to the discretion of communities is plain and simple vote-bank politics.

To add to this, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) the Supreme Court reiterated the view that Article 44/UCC, which forms part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, is not enforceable by Courts. Therefore, all that the Courts can do is to merely and fervently recommend the implementation of the UCC. Clearly when enforceable judgments of the Supreme Court are reversed through legislative amendments, it would be naive to expect the Government to pay heed to mere “recommendations” which do not have the force of law.

4. John Vallamattom v. Union of India- 2003

In this decision, commenting on the interplay between the right to religion under Article 25 of the Constitution and a UCC under Article 44, the following is what the Supreme Court observed:

“44. Before I part with the case, I would like to state that Article 44 provides that the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. The aforesaid provision is based on the premise that there is no necessary connection between religious and personal law in a civilized society.

Article 25 of the Constitution confers freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. The aforesaid two provisions viz. Articles 25 and 44 show that the former guarantees religious freedom whereas the latter divests religion from social relations and personal law.

It is not matter of doubt that marriage, succession and the like matters of a secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Any legislation which brings succession and the like matter of secular character within the ambit of Articles 25 and 26 is a suspect legislation.

Although it is doubtful whether the American doctrine of suspect legislation is followed in this country. In Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , it was held that marriage, succession and like matters of secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It is a matter of regret that Article 44 of the Constitution has not been given effect to. Parliament is still to step in for framing a common civil code in the country. A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing the contradictions based on ideologies.”

It is clear that the recurring theme in these decisions is that a UCC would go a long way is promoting national integration and in fostering a pan-Indian identity without affecting the credal and cultural pluralism of the country. Those who brand a pro-UCC stance as “communal” would do well to note that at no point are Hindu personal laws sought to be uniformly imposed on other communities under the facade of a UCC.

Therefore, there is no need or occasion for fear-mongering that a UCC is an attempt to “Sanskritize” or “Hinduize” non-Hindus. Instead, it is a critical step towards “Indianizing” everyone.

In the next post, I will compare the positions in India, US and UK on personal laws.

I am completely in favor of drafting and implementing a UCC, one appropriate for the 21st century. I have always believed that overturning of the Shah Bano judgment by Rajiv Gandhi (besides his Rushdie book ban) was one of the most cravenly opportunist acts a politician could indulge in, not to mention, an extreme disservice to Muslims themselves.

However, I do not understand which the liberal intellectual mafia is you are attacking here? I would appreciate any links that show liberal intellectuals who are completely against the principle of UCC. You did not provide any links or citations for that in the last article or in this one – I would have considered that a requirement for a lengthy article based on such a premise.

I can understand there are some Maulanas and some opportunist politicians who may oppose even the principle of UCC, but liberal intellectuals? I am happy to be proven wrong here, but this smells a little like ‘liberal intellectuals did not criticize Godhra train burning’, are ‘anti-Hindu’, type attack.

Sai Deepak J

JA, my posts are directed towards the Left generally, and not to a particular clique, which has been traditionally opposed to a UCC. For instance, when the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 1996 was introduced, the Left parties were up in arms and said a UCC would “create more problems for Muslims”. Although I do believe that minority grievances are selectively highlighted, that is not the premise of the post. I am not saying, “why do people highlight the aspirations for Islamic banking? Why can’t we have a Hindu form of commerce?” I am addressing a general bias that merely because a cause has been traditionally associated with the BJP, it need not and should not be portrayed as “Sangh Parivar’s sinister agenda to annihilate minority identity”.

Joseph Anton

I completely agree with you that just because BJP supports UCC, UCC does not become a non-secular issue. That is as bad as the argument that because Congress indulges in acts of minority appeasement – and Congress claims to be secular – secularism as a guiding principle is illegitimate.

But I am not sure the liberal or even leftist intelligentsia say that. I disagree with much of the economic prescriptions of the Leftist intelligentsia and several of their political (say, on Kashmir, Maoism), but I have never encountered an intellectual position from them that is in opposition to UCC. I read widely, but I may have missed something.

I pointedly asked you the question because the rhetorical questions in your titles appear to assume such a position. If not, greater clarity would help.

Sai Deepak J

If it helps, I will bring greater clarity in my future posts so that the allusions and references are clearer. That said, sometimes some of these opinions are in response to the views that I encounter in my circles and the people I meet. For instance, one of my objectives is to engage with bright, reasonably well-read and public-spirited law students who have been fed on NDTV’s leftist and anti-BJP slant in their formative years, and who don’t dig deeper into the UCC debate beyond (and only because of) the fact that the BJP or the RSS are pro-UCC. This binary approach does not bode well for future policy discourses because every issue is viewed only through the prism of ideology and intention without digging deeper into real-life implications on identity, national security and unity. What is surprising is that despite being students of law with access to judgments and with the tools to interpret and dissect them, their opinions are based on what they hear from these shallow talking heads who wouldn’t know the first thing about the law or policy analysis. Hence the attempt to use decisions to give them more information to base their views on.

I should clarify that by referring to the Old Monk couple or BDutt, I don’t wish to troll on public commentators and harass them for the views they hold because that serves only a limited a PR purpose. The larger goal is to engage with private citizens and the views that they hold and air in informal private discussions.

Sarab

UCC may be a means to Indianize, but what if ‘Indianizing’ is itself the problem that the opponents of UCC have (which by the way is the case)?

You need to present the problem for which Indianizing is the solution, whose means in turn would be the UCC. And then you have this consensus problem whether Indianizing is a requirement. Then,

Indian polity and judiciary for six decades kept swinging for the trade off between equality and justice, achieving neither to a convincing level. Because on the one hand Indian ethos do recognize these two as not being the same. And on the other hand you attempt to achieve one at the expense of the other, in a typical proxy colonial parliamentary legislation-s.

I am not really making a case against UCC – get it by all means, it will serve its purpose. But UCC (rather lack of it) is a symptom, not the problem. We need to realize the deeper issue what underlies this. It may not be as much of a political issue as it appears at the first look.

Sarab

Each mind chooses the logic that suits it. You cannot achieve both completeness and consistency as Kurt Godel says, and if RSS should remain partisan and communal (damn it whether the R stands for nation), then their motives behind UCC must be to achieve a uniformity by imposing the values of a Hindu rashtra. You cannot on one side agree that UCC can be ’eminently secular’ (in Dr. KE’s words) and also keep pursuing your anti-RSS tirade. And on the other hand, per constitution and the way SC treats the concept of Hindutva, a common civil code would turn out to be centered on Hindu ethos – whether or not they include religious or marriage laws. And that is itself the problem (see my other comment).

So its not shallowness or dishonesty, but a well known predicament of your leftist friends.

Sai Deepak J

so is it your view that Hindutva and UCC are inconsistent?

Sarab

I am not saying that.

Hindutva has its internal consistency in the way it trades off equality and justice. But that is fundamentally different from the way our constitution does, though the ideal is same.

Although in both, equality definitely is the second principle to justice, and is not something that can be given up unless the first principle is at stake. Where does UCC fall wrt this, as well as wrt the current constitution?

So at the very least, the proponents of UCC (not as in you but the movements making this demand) should at the very least spell out where the line is drawn, what they are really meaning by this. Are they saying that equality+justice is also a Hindu ideal and hence they want UCC within the current constitutional framework? Or are they saying they will open up the larger debate on what the code should be based on the ethos of the land?

Sai Deepak J

Let’s first identify the issues and address them clearly instead of running in circles. We agree that Hindutva and UCC aren’t inconsistent because Hindutvawadis do not wish to create a theocratic state. Also, I don’t think it is not possible to etch the contours of a UCC de hors a discussion on Hindutva.

As for the Constitution, it is a document that has attempted to accommodate a few competing views and ideologies. To harmonize it is the job of the Courts and to amend it is the job of the legislature. That said, UCC is not a constitutional aberration, it can be clearly justified as a concomitant of secularism which the Constitution swears by.

The short point is UCC as a necessity for a secular democracy is a conclusion that can be arrived at either through the prism of Hindutva or the Constitution. If only the UCC had not been part of the “normative” directive principles under Part IV, it would have been easier to demand its implementation.

Sarab

Agree. Even I am not showing a preference to one or the other, I am saying the Hindutva folks should spell out their stand with clarity – even during NDA rule this was brought into public discourse but not with the required catches and clarity if I remember it right.

pp_chn

why should we have a ‘secular democracy’?

Sai Deepak J

and the alternative, according to you, should be?

Sarab

Good one.

Secularism is merely a good first step the west took to fix its own theocratic religions, which secular-religious is an out of place debate in the Hindu context.

Same with democracy – its a good first step towards open society and an escape from oppressive monarchy, which again is irrelevant in Hindu context. But by definition it fails to create the best leadership in a diverse and complex society like ours.

But then, you can throw away the need for secularism and democracy only when you can accept this as a Hindu nation. The question is whether India is prepared for any such debate, not whether the obvious answer is the right answer.

pp_chn

Before talking of alternatives, why don’t you prove why secular democracy is the best for a very diverse, under-attack-from-monotheists-fifth-column Hindusthan?

Look East for a monarchy based system. Infact our monarchs took care of their own better than European Kings, as Sarab poitns out. Eg. Travancore, Mysore Kings.

Its a either or. If you want to have your ‘diversity’ you can’t afford to have ‘secular democracy’. If you are ready to give up the golden deer of ‘diverse’ Hindusthan, then i can agree for 1 man, not woman 1 vote. Till then a BIG NO to the VERY STUPID idea of ‘secular democracy’.

kpp1991

A Uniform Civil Code it must be if the country has to progress in a unified manner. What is happening now is polarized preferences handed out in the name of minority vote bank politics. That must not be the case. If Shaaria can be the rule of the land for Islamic countries which is ardently followed by all residents without hue or cry, why can’t we in India then have a UCC, which is democratic and equal in rights dispensation.

ps. There was a long argument when framing the constitution and it settled not as “Dharmanirpeksh” but as “Panthnirpeksha”: panth being the correct translation for religion/ sect; dharma being a concept that went well beyond religion to encompass ‘what’s the right thing to do’.

kpp1991

Let us for a second presume UCC from a communal point of view. Let us for a second deliberately polarize the intent and content of UCC. Let us for a second assume that the context of UCC is with a polarized intent. So, what is wrong with it, what is wrong in it. Muse for a moment. Christian countries have a set of laws that are broadly governed by Christian principles and practices. Islamic countries are always ruled by Sharia laws. Israel is ruled by orthodox Jewish laws. When all this is probable, possible and practical in this very world we are living currently, why not a UCC? It is not a HINDU set of laws so to speak. It is a unique set of laws that places every INDIAN in equal status. Why can’t Muslims and Christians, if they too are, accept the UCC and live harmoniously as Indians together. Why should there be different sects of laws governing different sects of People ONLY FOR INDIA?

If not for the political omissions and commissions Congress Party has, for sheer personal preferences and gains, burdened the Nation over a period of time, say, from 1910 onwards approximately, India would have had a Hindu Law in practice, a Hindu Country wholly and a Hindu Country where all are welcome to live equally, in the least! Instead, what has befallen upon the Nation is a hitherto unheard of English caption called **SECULAR** superimposed upon us as a consequence of Nehru/Gandhi’s utterly stupid, willful and shortsighted political gimmick. The Nation is burning now because of those follies the so called forefathers of the nation committed, not out of patriotism, but for sheer personal and political gains.

Therefore, at best or worst, a UCC is the only way forward for a progressive India. Well, under UCC all religions will co-exist in peace and harmony. Anything less than a UCC will only see a India ultimately reduced to an inferno of communal violence. Only a UCC can unite India. Only a UCC will provide those impoverished Indians with the dignity they till date have been denied. Most importantly, only a UCC will bring the Hindus of India under one roof and provide them with a confidence, a belief in *UNITY IN DIVERSITY*! The Minorities will follow suit automatically, either by law or by force – leave the choice to them! Proclaim India as a Hindu Rashtra without denouncing any other religion. It is imminent for the existence of a progressive India. Jai Hind!

Sarab

“Why can’t Muslims and Christians, if they too are, accept the UCC and live harmoniously as Indians together. ”

Because their goal is to subvert India and achieve their respective dominance over India – their intention is NOT to live harmoniously with Hindus. And this they have been very clearly spelling out for centuries.

munusamy ganapathy

Can anyone bring out a model of uniform civil code to make the hindutvawallaahs run for shelter
The special marriages act is more of an uniform civil code and any uniform civil code will not bar same gothra marriages or relative marriages or if it prevents certain people based on religion of their parents to marry the people of same gothra or uncles or uncles son/daughter etc it will not be uniform civil code
No traditional hindu has antipathy to polygamy as the author wants us to beleive but has venomous hatred to same gothra marriage or marriages prohibited by their local customs and do not hesitate to kill their own children.People who fight for scrapping of sethusamudram project on the basis of an imaginary bridge built in a mythological story want others to throw the myths/messeages/sanctions regarding marriages from their gods and their messengers.Nothing can be more hypocritical than this
Maximum opposition to uniform civil code will be from traditional hindus and even today traditional hindus working in registrar offices try their best to discourage same religion couples wanting to register under special marriages act and force them to register under respective religion marriages act
Making registration of marriages under special marriages act easy and incentives for registering under it can increase the number of people coming under a common civil code voluntarily

kpp1991

You are spot on, Sarab. Intent and purpose of the Muslims and Christians is very clear. It is only us Hindus and the Political head honchos who conveniently overlook this fact.

Sarab

“Can anyone bring out a model of uniform civil code to make the hindutvawallaahs run for shelter”

Why? So that supporters of genocidal ideologies like you will not find any obstacle?

munusamy ganapathy

Uniform civil code is nothing but rationality over religion where myths/polygamy,polyandry practised for thousands of years with religious/ caste/tribal sanctions are outlawed on the basis of newly found theories of equality between sexes/castes/religions etc
Its funny that the parivar which argues against sethusamuthiram project on the basis of myths and fights for continuation of caste/gender based discrimination in temples wants a uniform civil code.A uniform civil code will open the doors of sabarimala/priesthood to women of all ages and not the current situation of permission to pre and postmenopausal women (which is openly discriminatory on the basis of religious practises and texts like the permission for polygamy)only and strict no to women and other caste priests
Uniform civil code will support beef/pork etc as part of midday meal scheme if studies prove that adequate proteins can be given to the students at a lesser cost benefitting all and all religious beleifs will be thrown to the dustbin.

Sarab

So you don’t have answer. There will remain nothing uniform if you target Hinduism, the way a hate monger like you does, and you know it amply well.

Mathan Katharesan

You must be a black shirt wearing pro-dravidian stooge. I as a non-Brahmin Tamizhan have always wondered at the stupidity of Periyar’s followers. The 60 years old man married a minor he adopted for gods sake. I find it hypocritical for pro-dravidian stooges to be preaching about gender equal rights considering that their ”hero” Periyar was a pedophile.

Subscribe to our mailing list

Like us on Facebook

Categories

Categories

Recent Comments

gk: Are you running some university where you gave yourself '100' level knowledge rating? If you have s…

gk: >>>>>So what? words get added,changed and removed as time goes on You really do not h…

Sekar Devaraj: You have to study more, your knowledge level is "0". Please study and comeback to discuss here.…